Skip to comments.Schippert on Jones, Obama and Counterterrorism Leadership
Posted on 09/04/2009 12:25:58 AM PDT by Cindy
Note: Includes an audio file that starts immediately with the article.
SNIPPET: "Last night's overnight RapidRecon post, Jim Jones: Another Job 'Created or Saved'?, was an exercise in frustration. I had initially done an interview last night on Dr. Melissa Clouthier's popular show, The Right Doctor.
The first I heard of National Security Advisor Jim Jones's claim that President Obama has effected a more productive global counterterrorism strategy than President George W. Bush had was when Melissa Clouthier read it to me in the opening of her show. Clearly, by 2:00AM, my reaction here at ThreatsWatch hadn't changed or been tempered in pondering more.
Who's going to tell me this is because of Obama? I will laugh in your uninformed face. Out loud and in public."
(Excerpt) Read more at threatswatch.org ...
“Jim Jones: Another Job ‘Created or Saved’?”
SNIPPET: “This has me seeing red, having tried in vain to refrain from much comment until after watching another sunrise. One of the best journalists in Washington, ABC’s Jake Tapper, shares an exclusive interview with National Security Advisor Jim Jones in which the White House advisor gives every appearance of a man desperate to save his job. With apologies to Jake Tapper, heavy excerpt below from his story in Political Punch, National Security Adviser Says President Obama Is Having Greater Success Taking Terrorists Out of Commission Than Bush Did.
Responding to criticism from former Vice President Cheney that President Obama is making the nation more vulnerable to terrorism, the president’s National Security Adviser, Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.), told ABC News in an exclusive interview that actually the reverse is true: President Obama’s greater success with international relations has meant more terrorists put out of commission.”
SNIPPET: “Anyone besides me remember when General David Petraeus and other senior level military and intelligence officials went and had a sit down with Pakistani Army commander General Kiyani shortly after Petraeus took over CENTCOM? Do you think they were discussing the likability factor of then-candidate Obama?
Or do you think today Jim Jones is hoping that his is another job “created or saved” in that funky PR-lingo math practiced by White House economic advisors and media spokesmen?”
By Steve Schippert on September 1, 2009 at 2:02 AM
“Counterterrorism in Obama’s Washington”
by Daniel Pipes
August 18, 2009
SNIPPET: “Barack Obama’s assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, John O. Brennan, conveniently outlined the administration’s present and future policy mistakes in a speech on August 6, “A New Approach for Safeguarding Americans.”
To start with, his address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, has an unusual tenor. “Sycophantic” is the word that springs to mind, as Brennan ninety times in five thousand words invokes either “President Obama,” “he,” “his,” or “the president.” Disturbingly, Brennan ascribes virtually every thought or policy in his speech to the wisdom of the One. This cringe-inducing lecture reminds one of a North Korean functionary paying homage to the Dear Leader.
Specifics are no better. Most fundamentally, Brennan calls for appeasing terrorists: “Even as we condemn and oppose the illegitimate tactics used by terrorists, we need to acknowledge and address the legitimate needs and grievances of ordinary people those terrorists claim to represent.” Which legitimate needs and grievances, one wonders, does he think Al-Qaeda represents?
Brennan carefully delineates a two-fold threat, one being “Al-Qaida and its allies” and the other “violent extremism.” But the former, self-evidently, is a subset of the latter. This elementary mistake undermines his entire analysis.
He also rejects any connection between “violent extremism” and Islam: “Using the legitimate term jihad, which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself.”
This passage regurgitates a theory of radical Islam that, according to Lt. Colonel Joseph C. Myers of the U.S. Air Command and Staff College, “is part of a strategic disinformation and denial and deception campaign” developed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Discredited in 2007 by Robert Spencer, the theory distinguishes between good jihad and bad jihad and denies any connection between Islam and terrorism.
It’s a deeply deceptive interpretation intended to confuse non-Muslims and win time for Islamists.”